Obama ask military if they will fire on U.S. citizens.

Obama ask military if they will fire on U.S. citizens.

According to Nobel Peace Prize candidate.

It has happened before.

Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”

The field manual linked to in the article about the circumstances and procedures for taking action against U.S. Citizens is from the U.S. Army Military Police School at Fort McClellan and is dated for 2006.

The problem? Fort McClellan closed in 1999 and the U.S. Army MP School is at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.

Thats good, but do you still think it is being asked of our military. I am sure there si a some what kind of survey going around if this did happen. I hope it dont ever come to that, but it may in the near future.

If I had illegal guns and the military showed up to my door to take them....guess what? They can have them. I'm not gonna get blasted trying to prove a point that I obviously can't prove.

Why wouldn't the military have authorization to shoot American citizens deemed violent and unwilling to cooperate with the laws? Whether you agree with the law or not why would anyone with common sense NOT expect to get blasted by the military if they come to get your illegal guns?

Thats good, but do you still think it is being asked of our military. I am sure there si a some what kind of survey going around if this did happen. I hope it dont ever come to that, but it may in the near future.

I don't know. But posting what appears to be a phony field manual as evidence of the government's plan to use force against American citizens throws a lot of things into question. I might to some independent research to see what's true in here but I don't know what I'll find.

If it comes to something, then yes, having the litmus test for high command be whether or not someone is perfectly fine with using military force against civilians is a problem. Still, my guess would be that none of those guys got where they are by independent thinking and going against their commanders. Don't know what any of them would ultimately do in that situation. Either way it goes, if that's what it comes to, we're in trouble.

If I had illegal guns and the military showed up to my door to take them....guess what? They can have them. I'm not gonna get blasted trying to prove a point that I obviously can't prove.

Why wouldn't the military have authorization to shoot American citizens deemed violent and unwilling to cooperate with the laws? Whether you agree with the law or not why would anyone with common sense NOT expect to get blasted by the military if they come to get your illegal guns?

I don't have a problem with the federal government enforcing its laws. I'm not crazy about the United States Army being used within these borders. The National Guard is one thing, the U.S. Military is another matter. The Posse Comitatus Act is, and should be, serious business.

Of course, exempt from the provisions of Posse Comitatus are those that fall under the Insurrection Act but the day they use that as a cover for unleashing the armed forces on U.S. citizens is the day this whole American experiment is probably toast.

The slippery slope got worse with the drone actions on American citizen 'terrorist' without trials or due process. See other thread started yesterday on Senator question to John Brennan. The 'rules' for the policy for this are still secret. A very conflicted Federal judge affirmed that it will remain secret in a recent ruling. The amount of arbitrary power the executive office now has the ability to exercise should at least give pause. Of course this slippery slope started with the infamous Patriot act.

The more recent turnover in the entire military and intelligence structure seems to open the door for 'new thinking' on the limits of executive power. Secretary of Defense, CIA chief, Secretary of State, Head of US forces in Africa (Gen Ham), Admiral of Mediterranean-based carrier strike group, etc.

Will Cesar cross the Rubicon? It is hard to say where the Rubicon is right now.

Thats good, but do you still think it is being asked of our military. I am sure there si a some what kind of survey going around if this did happen. I hope it dont ever come to that, but it may in the near future.

To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible

Posts

36,433

Originally Posted by PurplePride92

If I had illegal guns and the military showed up to my door to take them....guess what? They can have them. I'm not gonna get blasted trying to prove a point that I obviously can't prove.

Why wouldn't the military have authorization to shoot American citizens deemed violent and unwilling to cooperate with the laws? Whether you agree with the law or not why would anyone with common sense NOT expect to get blasted by the military if they come to get your illegal guns?

As Getslow noted, it is against the law...the Posse Comitatus Act defines that only under the terms of the Insurrection Act may they act against US Citizens. Posse Comitatus Act isn't some mundane old law that is out of touch either, it was reviewed and updated in 1981.

Whether a real question that is currently being posed, or whether it's simply a hypothical one, I'd like to look at the situation from another angle. Should all these guns that the military is sent out to confiscate now be deemed "illegal"...how many in the military do you think not only have these types of guns themselves, but would willingly turn them in as well?